tv Capital News Today CSPAN December 20, 2011 11:00pm-2:00am EST
last transition. and there we know that the famine on folded and that creates a low set of expectations, so i actually think that if kim john il can survive and mobile through, then that would constitute success, and i think talks of great and prosperous nations is going to be just that and it's going to feed all from the picture. >> going to take one final question here and my old mentor you got the final question. >> we've come to the conclusion of the probability that kim john il will survive. what's going on right now apparently low. but the nine flashing back to 16
or 17 years ago and kim john il and how would that ever survive his regime had died as a womanizer, the largest film collector in the world, drove in a with street lights on mercedes, go on and on and on unless you talk to his professor which he always wanted me to do to understand his son who said he was brilliant, real intellectual. but is there any difference except in the age? and a lot of people believe that that issue was age. but any changes, any differences other than age that say he can't make it?
>> i think that darfurian 2011 is very different from north korea in 1994. i think that it is more penetrated to the outside world. i think the institutions compared to 1994 and i think monday is the route to success, not theology and so those are factors i think like this is devotee of the transition and the strategy for sustainability different for kim jong un compared to kim john il. >> i would agree with that. i think that in addition i would say one of the other differences is kim john il have a lot more time to prepare. the death was sudden of course but he had already been put in a position he was expected to succeed over a decade before
july of 1994. that certainly is not the case for kim jong un, and i think this point about the north korean society in 1994 is so different from what it is today. it is more penetrated as we discussed earlier. there's the market mentality that didn't exist before, the clear understanding that among the many in the north korean society that the social contract is a north korean social contrast but it's a social contract between the government and the society in many ways has failed. so i think it is a very different situation. >> i would only reiterate in terms of the preparedness. when you think back to 1994 and the immediate aftermath, people were saying can he survive? but yet he had been in the preparatory phase for 20 years but more importantly, he had been actually in control on a day-to-day basis. that's not the case here. and there's a significant difference between a 52-year-old
who control back to his experiences and having witnessed the interplay of watching his father develop the country and control the levers of power in what is he going to turn back to the last basketball game that he watched? i'm not quite sure. so i do think that there is a significant difference and it is far more fraught with danger than it was. >> i sure we will be continuing to watch these with great interest as we move forward and please help me thank the panelists today. thank you very much. [applause]
former russian president vladimir putin will once again run for president in march of 2012. he served as president between 2003 to 2008 and is currently prime minister. the official results of the recent elections have given putin's united russia party in majority in parliament. protestors have accused the government of vote rigging. today the center for national interests posted this discussion about russian politics. it's an hour in and a half. >> we are going to get under way now. it's a great privilege to moderate this afternoon's session. i call dimitri now only about a week ago after of course
observing the defense under way in the russian federation in moscow and other cities. what some have described as perhaps the beginning of the breakup of the ice that forms during a russian winter to discuss the political changes under way in russia, and i suggested that of course dimitri siloed join us to provide his views on not only what has happened, but what could occur in the future. surprisingly he sort of resisted me in wanting to talk about these issues buy very quickly was able to twist his arm and get him to agree to the meeting. i think dimitri now looking at
the very good turnout we have today, the level of interest, a lot of familiar faces around the table, i think we have the opportunity to not only listen to the views but also engage in a good back-and-forth discussion among all the fuss. dimitri truly is the guy who needs no introduction to read just remind you he came to the united states from the soviet union in 1973, developed close relations with past and policy makers most notably with president nixon, became an obvious choice to lead the then nixon center and now the center for the national interest. he is one of those renaissance people who is able i think to
combine both the topicality and falling daily events not only in russia but globally, but with a deep academic and theoretical perspective. we titled this session "the end of the putin era ?" and i think at this stage the question is. something is going on and we are not quite sure at this stage what it is. dimitri, i'm going to give you the floor so you can help us understand it. >> thank you very much. the was a generous introduction and in the spirit of the full disclosure, he did not twist my arm. he suggested doing it at our board of directors. [laughter] and since the ambassador is chairman of our program
committee, when he makes a suggestion, i listened very carefully. but now, mr. ambassador, thank you for the opportunity. the end of the putin era with a question mark. well, i think that anyone who claims that the putin era is coming to an end needs to be fine what does it mean. both my senior editor of the nation interest can tell you about an article the recently of published about the end of the american era in the global politics, an article like this to walt, and what was good about this article is it frames the issue not in terms of black and white, not in terms of the united states starting with a superpower, losing the global influence, but with much greater
nuance asking the question with the united states placed the same dominant role in the international affairs? were they able to play after the end of the cold war. so, using this article tells an example, i will say they cannot predict with certainty whether putin himself will depart from power any time soon. what they think we can predict with certainty that you will not be given to rule the waiver will in russia during the last 11 years. and that his ability to understand and talk since that would ultimately determine whether he is able to be elected and then tuesday as the russian president. it is quite clear that important things are happening in russia and that the potential loss for
the meaningful reform and for the very dangerous destabilization. 5,000 people have demonstrated in moscow on december 10th. 50,000. doesn't sound as a huge number when you look at what happened for instance in egypt. when you look at some other demonstrations in europe, when you remember the anti-nuclear demonstrations and new york and the central park with almost a million people. so, it doesn't sound like a huge number. but in terms of previous motion practices, 50,000 people coming to the position meeting in moscow particularly the meeting which was not organized by any established parties, organized primarily through internet on very short notice this was quite
dramatic, if there were thousands and thousands of other russians demonstrating all over the country smaller meetings in many of the cities but you can say was a considerable degree of certainty that this was the first time that russian middle class decided that they want to be taken seriously. we still lot no the people that can to this meeting, to what extent they will have specific political demands. what is very clear that they want to deliver at least one simple message colin quote enough is enough and we are not to tolerate this nonsense any longer. this was a very important and very powerful message. because only a couple of years ago when we were observing the
russian public opinion, we could say with a considerable degree of certainty that the russian middle class was not necessarily the the the not want to become involved in politics. they believed in putin's good and bargain. namely as a people don't question how we run the government and we make sure that your life styles, you're living standards consistently improved and we will not interfere in your personal freedoms. you don't tell us of the government, what officials policies should be coming and we will not tell you where you should live, where you should travel, where you should work, or even what you should think. and if you want to criticize the government, please do it as long as you don't do it on city or national tv channels which were
considered by the government to important chance. that grant bargaining was rejected on december 10th in moscow and in many other russian cities. why it happened i don't think we will ever know. like when we look at the revolution into nisha and other arab revolutions. you can see a relatively small the event that has triggered public condemnation. but clearly, the public for at least major parts of the public are already felt ready to engage in protests. 50,000 people again is not a huge number of people. but the revolutions have traditionally store to buy smaller middle class minorities, in particular in moscow. so for the government to ignore
the people the government would do it only and these people as they would be ignored if an attempt would be made to ostracize them come to present them as foreign agents i think that would limit an increasingly angry, and they may become revolutionaries contrary to their own initial inclinations. we were talking for some time about the realities in russia. i was talking about that several months ago with the leader of the party, one party which is a kind of official opposition, loyal opposition, was allowed to take part in the last parliamentary elections that the same time they genuinely agree to the government. and he said to me at the time
that in russia people existed in the two parallel realities. one was the reality of the universe, but people who watch tv who are influenced by what they think is an approach suggested by the government and that at that time is acceptable to the vast majority of the russian citizens. and then there was a growing internet space, people who were very cynical about the government, people who rely primarily on the internet use, people who were spending a growing amount of time on the internet, but has said out the time these people were not a weekend. for them the internet reality was not something that required any particular action that required them to do anything
specific in their real life. what has happened on december december 10th the internet reality moved into the reality of russian political life. and i don't think that you can see any real turning back. what has provoked the people who want to demonstrate, i think it started probably she on september 24th when putin and medvedev have announced they would change jobs and that now putin again would run for presidency and medvedev would become the prime minister. most people assume by that time that putin probably would run for presidency and most people i saw were prepared to accept that. but the wage was done. just the kind of announcement of the party meeting without any preparation, without any
discussion. it offended a lot of people, particularly educated people who felt that once again they were taken for granted. even people who were supportive of putin were upset with the way that it was done. entrée at that time the vice prime minister minister of finance came to washington take part in the imf meetings. he left moscow on the eve of that ruling united russia party meeting in the announcement about putin and medvedev switching jobs was made. putin consistently, including just three days ago, was describing putin as one of his closest political associates and indeed personal friends when he
came to washington he set for the first time that medvedev would be the first minister putin had differences with medvedev and he made an announcement in washington which was rather provocative in the newsroom, saying that he would not serve in the russian government under medvedev for the acting minister of finance to make an announcement like that on foreign soil. i thought it was not something that is conventionally done. but if you do understand, it is also not conventionally done for the vice minister to counter it as a country and on tv that something like that is being arranged in his own government. you would understand his reaction. first, the vice premier mr. hu said publicly about this
arrangement when he listened to it in a meeting of the united russia. i talked to the senior kremlin officials involved in organizing that a united russia meeting. they told me that yes the formed in advance like about 24 hours in advance because then they had to arrange the meeting they were in charge of everything. they had to be told. but otherwise, nobody really knew. the prime minister putin, still around russia as was a senior kgb officer as if it was the secret operation whereas the more you fear the more you can get into trouble. and where you don't really change permission with anyone and don't seek any admissible advice the prime minister putin was once asked about his advisers who has advised us to
take the foreign policy issues? putin thought a little bit and said henry kissinger. now henry kissinger is the honorary chairman of the center and i have the greatest distinction in the things that putin is doing well listening to henry kissinger. but what was remarkable that he could not think about anyone in his own country, in his own government he would want to call an adviser because the emperor doesn't really have that pfizer's. the have assistance, they don't have advisers. and that created the situation. inside the russian elite, even inside the russian government. that announcement about putin and medvedev switching jobs was taken very poorly. one idea of apparently keeping medvedev as prime minister was that medvedev was considered
more liberal and that he would bring with him his liberal constituencies to support the ruling party during the the duma elections the the opposite happened. because during that campaign exactly like putin, most of his constituencies felt betrayed. so bringing medvedev back as prime minister really did not served him well. i also think that there was considerable fraga during the by-elections. i actually do not believe that there was widespread as some critics have suggested. i think there was considerable consistency between the results of the public opinion polls, including public opinion polls conducted by independent organizations like the center
and the way that the count was announced. but there were a couple of very laudable exceptions. and of the primary exception was moscow where clearly it was considerable disconnect between the way the votes were, quote home quote, counted. and there were independent polls. exit polls have suggested there was a considerable disconnect, and people in moscow, they knew how they voted, how their friends and neighbors had voted to read and when they looked into the figures, they clearly felt betrayed and post judgment not just about moscow but obviously about the way this election was conducted. so i think that has triggered the public in the nation particularly in moscow and
where, where. the question is can the russian government still hold its ground and get putin retek elected as the president in march? in my view it is still doable. it is not assured that it is doable. but first it is doable but it is not assured. and the government would have to be very careful. not to provoke the people even more than they already have provoked. and also the question is at what cost would putin be reelected because if putin is really elected with the exception of widespread fraud, that of course can trigger the crisis of russia right away, and even if the government can handle this crisis, the question is what next. i talked to some very knowledgeable russians, very
knowledgeable about russia and people who is supportive from the government and they believe that it's likely to be serious economic difficulties in russia next fall. and one reason for that is putin and medvedev have a very populist campaign and continue to run now a very populist campaign to elect putin as president. they are promising a great deal return to people everyone who depends upon the government budget and particularly the military and security services whose loyalty they want to count, and there's a great challenge for the government to be able to balance the budget and to maintain any kind of fiscal prudence. that is one reason the finance minister putin was so critical of what medvedev was doing as president and clearly now he talked about the disagreements with putin.
so in this situation where the government is able to survive, but the major confrontations, the major government for what, then the question is what is going to be the serious economic difficulties next fall. and it will be not just on the internet generation, but motion cities who would feel squeezed and go to the streets. so this is the very challenging time for russia. so far i see the russian government response to us putin talking about all of these being a product of the foreign conspiracy. i think it would say to the people who tend needed to try to persuade, namely the middle class russian organizers, and i think the majority of the russians when the negotiations like that come from medvedev from russian tv, even if there is something to these
allegations i don't think that they can literally. i think that it is a question of dignity and respect. i think a lot of russians want the government to recognize that if they are making clear that they are angry and they want change that for the government to say that all this is being directed by hillary clinton, this is not the right way to proceed if the government wants to maintain its support and to maintain its legitimacy inside russia itself. let me make a point about the position. the trouble with analyzing the russian situation is in many arab countries like to believe that the government is enacted and corrupt and like to assume the opposition are the nights on white horses. unfortunately that is not quite the case.
putin was right in my view in his long interview on the russian channel. putin said a lot of things that the former prime minister being widely perceived as very, very corrupt about some russian opposition leaders coming back from the 90's and there is a real danger that what is being criticized of the putin government as a group that the group from the 21st century they may be replaced by the gangsters and the robber barons from the 1990's that would not be a good scenario. ..
i thought they were getting pretty favorable publicity, yet they did not get them. they got 3.3% of the vote. they double the vote. all together russian liberals got about 47 in the last elections, so what worries me is we may confuse like we already confused in egypt composition of protesters at the square with the country, and then we're surprised in egypt when the muslim brothers and people more congress servetive more than muslim brothers are doing very well. we would be quite surprised if there are genuinely free
elections in russia, and we may see a lot of people who would be tough critics was rest and of particular of the united states. incidentally, all parties that have entered the government, they have denounced clinton for her criticism of the russian elections, and all of them have criticized russian non-profit groups, which received support from u.s. foundations and particularly from the u.s. government. let me talk about the state and u.s. interest. it does not look like a very important country in terms of nuclear weapons. we have recently together produced a report on u.s. policy
where we made the point that russia is important for many reasons, but particularly because russia is the only country that can really destroy the united states. they have the capability. several people in this room at the meeting with putin in november at the so-called forum where putin took an issue with our report saying, well, russia russia -- we can do it even faster, but putin says there were also other reasons where russia can be important to the united states, and the things i made, the update of russian importance very seriously. let me mention, however, according to a recent forecast
by goldman sachs, as we know, mistaken on a number of occasions also regarding their own profits -- [laughter] but, still, this forecast prepared by pretty knowledgeable serious people, and they believe by the year 2050, russia will be number six in terms of global gop product. number six. being ahead of most american, european allies, and perhaps even of japan. now, i would not take too literally, but i would simply say the russian economic potential is serious, real, and particularly if russia into deuces -- introduces major reforms. it could be a major player not only because of its nuclear potential. russia also is, of course, a
member of the u.n. security counsel, and russia, of course, is a country which can quickly change the dynamics of politics if it chooses to align itself with china. russia and china for many years were competitors. they look at each other with considerable suspicion. they have different economic interests. there are initiations of economic issues that are very difficult indeed. having said that, if we manage to create major issues in the american relations with both china and russia, at least on the tactical level, at least in parallel, some kind of an alliance or at least an agreement between the two powers is quit possible, and then internation politics would not be quite the same. let me end on the very simple
note. with the choice to make in the policy with russia, clinton was very critical of russian elections, and probably with some reason. at the same time, israeli foreign minister was in moscow meeting with prime minister putin, and in front of tv cameras, he said that he talked to israeli observers at russian elections, and they all told him there was no serious violations. i assure you his family who came from the soviet union and who is a very conservative is recall lee -- israeli leader that he is not naive about russia and about russian politics.
actually, he had difficult relations with putin and others because israel had serious disagreements with russia and russia a serious supporter of syria, hamas, and he came to moscow to try to persuade russia and exchange seriously the russian positions on all issues of great importance to israel. he clearly made a proclamation they were negotiating with russia, and met us on great importance to israel that would be not the best time for him to criticize russian government and policies. during the last 20 years, we came to a very different conclusion. we came to a conclusion that after the end of the cold war, we can tell about everybody how they had come back through the affairs, and that we can do it
without leverage of u.s. interest and u.s. ability to do things that are very important to us like russian support in iran, like our continuing supplies from russia to afghanistan. things that really affect american security and american lives. whether we should be able to have our cake and eat it too, it's difficult to make a prediction, but i do believe that there's instances when i made an interest in the american values in some conflict, and they also believe that doing what is in the u.s. national interest, that saves american lives and protects american security, that it also reflects american's values, and we should remember about that policy towards russia. thank you. >> thank you, dimitri. you have given us a lot to think
about and i hope to talk about. i'll exercise the moderator's right to maybe ask you the first question or make the first comment, and i'll give fair warning to my good friend, general, i'll give the floor to you after i've asked my question and dimitri's answered so you have a little time to prepare, but dimitri, i found part of your presentation maybe a little bit -- you've given us a paradox, if you will. i mean, i think you quite correctly pointed out that if you survey the whole political scene in russia, you don't find united russia on the one hand and a group of western liberalizers on the other. i think the second largest political party are the communists. you got the nationalists.
you've got a gaggle of other extremist parties, and as you pointed out, you have the would-be liberals scoring only at most 3% or 4%. at the same time, however, as i watch those protests on the news, i saw what you, again, correctly pointed out were what we used to call in the 1980s, mainly yuppies. young urban professionals who clearly if they didn't get the straight news from television, they were in touch on the internet. they probably all followed this iconic figure, the famous blogger. there does seem to be at least amongst the protesters a group of people who i would classify
as modernizers. wouldn't necessarily call them liberals, but clearly people who are not extremists, are not ultranationalists necessarily, and didn't strike me as communists either. in your view, what's your -- am i wrong about this discrepancy? i did get this sense just as you saw in at least in the early demonstrations in the arab spring, that you did have people who wanted more openness, more transparency at least, and wanted a government that they could influence. >> i think there is a paradox in the extension between two of our objectives with russia. on one level, of course, we look at the yuppies as you called
them, interested in modernization, against the corruption in russia, and it's difficult for us not to identify with them, particularly noisy, the people whom we mostly see on our own tv and rad about them in new york -- tv and read about them in new york and "time" magazine. we have seen this, obviously, in egypt several months ago, and to support these people to support reform is the very nature of americans, but then you also want to support something else called free election, and then you discover in egypt, and then we may discover in russia that there's a certain disconnect between the young urbans who are so visible and who sound like us and many of them speak good english, and some of them, some of the best spokesmen spent time in the united states being affiliated with the best american universities, but then we discover once you allow free
elections, other groups, other social brothers, they come to the top, and what they want to do, you may find very problematic. in the case of egypt, of course, one of the challenges is what the islamic majority in the government, and expected to keep it, and what would they do in the case of israel? i would want to know a nation of the russian parliament, how would impact their policy with the views of the united states? you mentioned alex, and he was almost called a hero, a former member, one of the leaders. he was asked to leave because he
was becoming a nationalist, and only recently, he took part in the event which was including russia ut tray nationalist, and -- ultranationalists, and he himself was talking russia for people who are ethnic russians, and he was talking fast about stopping to subsidize caucuses where they already have strong separatist movements that could lead to destabilization, but he was also talking about russians, not ethnic, those in moscow, and if you hear these policies coming from the new russian political majority, we may discover this is not the outcome we'd be fully comfortable with.
>> you're suggesting perhaps the real political choice at this stage of russian political development is between putin and the ultranationalists? >> i am suggests that we cannot be sure. we can want be sure in the case -- we cannot be sure in the case of egypt. what i'm also suggesting is there is an unfolding drama, a variety of outcomes that are possible. i am also suggesting that the government still have some cards to play, but i do not see evidence so far that they can play their cards well. let me mention to you a conversation, a very revealing conversation, that i had last february in moscow. the center for the nation of interest had a joint event with another group in moscow led by a
tv commentator who was just elected as new chairman of the russian committee of international relations, and that was just the beginning of the arab spring, and that conversed people in the room, and everybody said, no, it's not going to happen. maybe two or three years from now, but then i said, okay, but let's assume you're wrong. let's assume that there would be a major demonstrations in russia, in moscow, in the next several months during the elections. can the russian government rely on the security services? every person in the room said no. they were more specific saying it would be -- the russian
government could use a so-called security division, and they probably -- and day after day with growing number of casualties. there was a sense of their own that at the minimum the governments could not be sentenced, that the military and security services were the soldiers happened to be just regular recruits which represent the russian society, that the russian government can count on them. you ask me, well, of course, you can just do one conversation over dinner in a moscow restaurant and why it is so important. it is important because participants that were included two former prime ministers, one of whom used to be the director of the federal security service and another of the intelligence
service, former chief of the general staff who is now adviser, and several duma leaders and pollsters who were progovernment and independent, and not a single person in the room had any confidence in the security services able to handle violence on any basis. for me, it suggested that it would be a totally impossible situation. >> general? >> thank you, dimitri, that was a fascinating analysis. just a couple of points. first you harken to egypt in
many different times at the heart of both of them, and first, the ease of with which demonstrations can be organized now. you said there's no party behind it. you don't have to have a party. just push a button and say turn out on the square tomorrow morning, and it goes out to a million people. that's the first thing. the second thing is as we're seeing in egypt and other places, we take opposition and demonstrations as cry for democracy. it seems much to me much more basic than that -- for dignity, and what happened with the switch from -- between putin was
on the front to dignity. unacceptable. one of the things i want to ask you, do you think the primary motivation was what happened in september that opened the switch back again or elections which were considered to be corrupt because it makes a difference which way you go. the last point, you ignored the last six years when putin was still obviously running the shaw, but there was a different veneer over it, and what i'm wondering is how much of that veneer was really influence, and how much of it was putin, and has putin learned that you get
more flies with honey than with vinegar or whatever the saying is? has that last year's mary gone, or if putin succeeds now, will we, in fact, have -- he's not a dummy. he learns something from the styles and how they've dement with -- dealt with the would that might promise a different generation. >> first talk about putin. i think that putin on many levels is one of the most intelligent world leaders today. i have met some, and they seem that putin is one of the most impressive in terms of his overall intellect, in terms of his overall knowledge of history, in terms of his being able to think strategically. my feeling is that while he's
clearly not communist anymore, and i do not believe he is any serious -- the russian empire, i think there is a lot of security agents, and by security agent i mean a person who sees the trust in others as a weakness, a person who thinks if you share information, it is likely to be used against you. a person who came from the military background and who thinks your sub -- subordinates should obey you and do what they are asked of and when you are running it, it's
the exact opposite to what putin expected from his own security counsel, and they talked to two separatists of his security government, and it was very clear that any kind of free fall when agency hits, when top experts would be able to express any opinions, that's not -- that's not what putin never expected. yesterday, mr. putin talkedded about -- tucked -- talked about the national energy, and it was discovered that about 50% of officials, executives, in russian government control energy countries are simultaneously engaged in business of their own, businesses which obviously are connected. >> you say he just discovered that? [laughter] >> it sounded like he was just discovering it, and that my impression is that remarkably there is a lot of things in
russia which this well educated men does not know or quite understand about the country. he, in this sense, looked much more modern, a much more appealing to the urbanite yuppy generation, and putin to be loyal after the announcement on september 24th, i think it eliminated credibility. with this generation and the existence stopped being terribly useful to putin. >> no, i didn't mean that he had been useful, but putin is smart. he deeply resented the united states in the way we treated russia at the end of the cold war.
got much further with the resentencing by having a different approach. now, if putin is so intelligent, and i agree with you that he is, all he has to do is change his visceral attitude. it's nonat intellectual -- it's not an intellectual woe. >> well, if he's capable of that, he has not demonstrated it yet. >> okay. [laughter] >> and i can only tell you two things. he's long tv performance, and i was on the russian channel, and i thought in many respects it was a masterful performance. he clearly was on top of his facts. he clearly could be very spontaneous. it was a little bit orchestrated, but, well, it is russia, but when i was thinking about putin's effectiveness not
vis-a-vis his tradition, but with this new yuppy generation, i thought he was outright counterproductive. he said he looked at the people demonstrating, and he said wide grievance and said it looked like they were wearing some kind of condoms. to many, this was offensive. thisgoing to the demonstrations was a big deal to them, the first time they were saying they were citizens. today, another scandal, a political opposition leader, former vice prime minister, who i consider one of the more dispickble people in russia, one of the favorite engaged in this illicit privatizations, and now he's a champion of democracy, but he's one of the people who is appealing to the yuppy
generation. i understand that putin despises him because he accuses putin of being a thief, and that's his principle campaign slogan, and it's difficult for putin not to take it a little personal. having said that, they just released on their government related website, audio tapes of the private phone conversations when he is using a lot of wild language and where he's criticizing against putting down 5 lot of his colleagues in the position of the movement. now, clearly, they idea was that the dissertation would be destroyed, but the yuppies organized and feel this is another offense to them. they feel they are taken as idiots. if they want to run a government campaign like that, they will further anger a lot and a lot of
people. it's in the all over yet for putin to demonstrate his potential to become different, but the clock is ticking. >> okay. i'm going to open this up, please, because we have the friends from c-span here. please identify yourself. arnold? >> arnold -- carnegie. dimitri, you posed the issue for the united states in what is by now the very familiar and traditional way. it really is -- should we support a stability, which is fairly predictable, not entirely satisfactory, and opposed to which there are possible alternatives that are better, and some that are worst. the ones you spent most of your time with are the ones that are worst. we've been there and done that
before and not to make a premature choice like before, as analytical as we can be to see which way the movement is going internally depending partly on how putin and his government are responding to the challenge and how the challenges are organizing themselves and preparing and behaving. the second challenge is with the opposition, and that's equally difficult. the liberal opposition, which we are most interested in, has a very, very poor track record. it's very vulnerable, but it's also clear that the opposition that those people who are out in the square demonstrating and who have been active on the
internet, they are not interested in the official opposition. the official opposition is no opposition at all. the parties who gain most in this election whether by hook or crook, are not parties in our judgment of american interests that would serve our interest if they gained in strength, and the problem internal as i see it are between those forces trying to advance the delegit maization of a system which in their view failed them and failed the country and opposite forces, in this case, headed by putin, himself, who are trying to reassert themselves.
i think the response so far of the administration is useful. i think they were right to put the position out quickly and not follow the advice of some, a few, not including incidentally the candidates, which was interesting, to have the president immediately come out with a strong position on the elections themselves, so my reply to you is not so fast. i'm not so persuaded yet that any defeat of putin will lead to a political change in russia that will necessarily be to our disadvantage and i see extraordinary benefits both for russia and for mankind indeed, if, in fact, contrary to past performance, the opposition now with a new input of vitality,
energy, and a different population could succeed in putting together something that the country can get behind. i think putin's initial response to it in the interviews was very bad. i don't think he advanced his cause one ioata, but he has shown they are capable of organizing a successful movement. >> well, the first thing is what they should stop doing, and that's what was mentioned. the dignity of those who disagree with the russian government and accept what they should know themselves. the reasons for opposition is heated and real. if putin made talk about corruption all the time and power in russia and interest and dignities of the people. actually, ignoring dig dignity
and interests of foreign up vesters as well leading to the outflow of capability from russia. i think what you need to see is for mr. putin to start talking in a way that would indicate to more moderate among the protesters that putin is getting their message and as suggested that we may see a new reincarnation of putin. we have seen the reincarnation of nixon and many other american political leaders. we do know it's possible, not always successful, but possible, but at first a leading question needs to make a conscious decision that something has changed in the country and changed in some ways. without that, i don't think putin will be able to be successful. the second thing more specifically, i think they have to accept that putin cannot win
as they made clear they wanted it. according to every opinion poll i have seen, and let me emphasize, massive fraud, a little bit of hankie panky here and there, but the kind of massive fraud that makes elections illegitimate in the minds of millions and millions of russians. putin would have to accept that you should be prepared to go to a second round of elections, and the fear, of course, is the second round of elections all opposition can unit against putin even to support somebody
like the communist leader just to get rid of putin, and they do understand that putin would have to accept an element of vulnerability and an element of unpredictability. some absolutely face, and if i was in his shoe, i would create some predictability too because if you listen to them, they are not running against putin's political problem or the way putin runs the country. they are saying that he's a thief, a crook. they do not just want to change the government, they want to put putin and company in jail and have an arab style revolution, and if you can imagine ones in moscow that happened to gadhafi, they take it permly, and putin has to -- personally, but putin has to accept that is the way it is today. that's an element of uncertainty that they have to accept.
i am conveyanced that if -- convinced that if putin plays his cards right, he still can win in the second round. i don't know whether i would say it's a month from now, but today i believe he can win the second round. he remains, by far, the most popular politician in the country, and not just talking about government position polls, but i'm talking about opposition polls, the polls which feel that they are totally independent. you also have the 77% of the russian tv audience watch putin for four and a half hours, and that is not information from the tv channel. that is information, again, from the independent polls. he clearly remains a charisma and the kind of legitimacy that makes him a strong candidate, but hi would have to accept an
element of uncertainty. he has to stop demonizing his opponents, particularly talking not about leaders, but just people who go to demonstrate against him, and he would have to start talking seriously about what he's going to do for the country. again, they are constantly watching you, and putin offered a lot of announcements how he is going to raise this group, that group, retired people, military security. well, russian budget has its limits, and theyty it's important for -- they think it's important for putin to go to the polls, presenting his problem and saying what is it that he intends to do, and that would require a problem, prepared by him for a group of people, and i don't see something like that happening so far, and the clock is ticking, but there's a lot
here for him. >> madam ambassador. > thank you, embassy of bulgaria. thank you. as always, one of the most interesting and challenges and debating places in this town. i was going to ask you about further sort of reflection on your description of a relative support of russia and i think you gave that much of an answer explaning it can go further than what it is today. i think that we have those discussions on two plains. one is the domestic scene in the aftermath of the election and the behavior of the opposition group, and also, of course, geopolitics, and what are the implications? are they expected the aftermath of this election? i would really appreciate a common view of how would you
describe what can be a rational argument in favor of more engagement with the west, whatever it may mean, and the united states of america, and a gut feeling, which i think is slightly different, that feeling that has been there for generations on end, i think, correct me if i'm wrong, but ever since the times have been great, kind of a defensive attitude versus the west, and in modern times, this is the united states of america in the first place. how would -- how would you compare the policy of apiecement of -- appeasement of european countries, this is russia, and the current administration? would there be likely hoods and which one of these would be a better attitude than the other? and the other one, how would you describe what is a patriotic
platform, a patriotic platform and depends how you term in in russia and coming down to not just the russians, more internal argument, and vis-a-vis the ut tray world and the -- ultra world and the political platform. >> let me start with the first platform first because it's a very important one. i do know people who are demonstrating at -- they think, and since i spoke on the phone, i would not want in order to describe with any certainty their convictions at this point
with two impulses. one impulse is enough is enough, and these people are denying our rights for too long, and now we want to be taken seriously, and because they do not have a wealth on a political platform, there's a flexibility in terms of their demands, but what they want from government is not another monologue, but a genuine dialogue. at the same time, these people really support him and his nation and the strategy. some of the people actually salespeople english -- speak engling, unlike me, without an accent. some went to the universities, and very successful in their professions.
there are two conflicting emotions. they are very angry with the government, and yet they want to be able to make their own choices. actually -- >> this is a government which goes along the same lines -- i'm sorry, that's a question, not a comment. >> they do not want to be told from anyone from the outside, do not want their own government to say they are acting on anybody's orders, but they also do not want anybody from outside the country to become too involved in the internal affairs, and i think that we have to try to develop policy which would not look and would not be an appeasement policy, but which would allow us to have real dialogue with the people,
something that we talked about, and i would think about three specific things. we can, in my view, foot seriously to consider, and first, i think with the joinings of the wtr, we have to get rid of the jackson amendment because if we keep it on the books, it would really discriminate against u.s. business and against u.s. investors in russia. however, in the current environment in my view to get rid of the jackson amendment without replacing it with some other legislation which would establish the link between the u.s. policy and domestic practices, i think it would be sending a wrong signal, and actually that would be creating an impression in russia that we do not care about russian depression. accordingly, i think that we sthowld proceed with -- should proceed with the so-called bill which is namedded
off russian lawyer who died in the russian jail. that's a long story, but i would say that we, in my view, should have a carefully subtle piece of legislation which would give that administration appropriate apparel and the appropriate procedures which would make sure it is sufficiently focused with sufficient safeguards and very important with the president obviously being able to make an appropriate nation of security exemption where necessary, but they do think that some version of these are important. the second thing that i would do is, well, i don't any that we need to attack the russian election and the russian duma, but if i was a member of congress, i would think seriously about engaging in
exchanges with the russian duma. it is our prerogative to what extent we want to have dialogue with these people, and last, but not least, the board of directors where they instructed me to proceed with many event will also discuss our sense of the national interest in taking foreign money, and they both have decided that we will not, and we did not in the past take any foreign government money or foreign money connected. i think it's important for groups like ours, and ours is american foreign policy and non-profit organizations to become quite careful about taking money from groups connected to the russian government, in which engage in the russian propaganda
campaign. we some time ago, the center for the national interest where they were taking russian money. we never did. the "washington post" proceeded with the whole section once a week, a whole section, which is propaganda advertisement produced by the russian government, so i want to suggest, you know, a certain degree of consistency and the higher level of integrity in how we deal with those in russia who we all felt abuse corruption. let's look at the mirror. let's be prepared to put our money where our mouth is. >> barbara slavin. >> thank you. i'm curious about the latest
addition to the russian campaign, the owner of the normings mets. -- new jersey mets. does he have a shot? did putin have plastic surgery, and do you know if that is, indeed, the case? >> i looked at mr. putin during the last performance on the channel, and he looked a little different. i am not an expert on plastic surgery, and i cannot give you an informed answer, and i have to say if i was putin, i would have a lot of sleepless nights, and also can change their appearance somewhat and we really have no idea. a very successful businessman, he made the bulk of his fortune in the 1990s when his partner for $5 million to the kennedy center where his partner went into the government, became
first vice prime minister and was very active in privatizing russia government profit groups. that was the origin of the enormous wealth. over time as, you know, some russian businessmen proved to be unable to grow from their previous roots, and some proved they are capable of more. i've seen him and demonstrated he's a successful business leader, and he's established himself as a formidable presence in the russian politics. so far, he had an uneasy relationship with the russian government, but was considered basically and he would be interesting to run against
putin. the chances that he would be elected are zero because the russians are in the populist mood. they don't like ologarks who made their fortune in the 90s and are in the united states. they know of the scandal that he was arrested in france for allegedly importing a bunch of girls, and he was found innocent because they were not professional prostitutes, and they just came to entertain him and his friends., but how to put this delicately, this is not a lifestyle most russians can identify with. >> they might approve of it. [laughter] >> they may dream about. >> okay. [laughter] >> there is suspicion that the purpose of this scandal is still
a kind of appeal to some liberal yuppy vote without being a credible threat. that, in my view while these things happen in politics, but putin relies on things like that, and then i think he is going to be brutally disillusioned. >> back there. >> wayne, the foreign policy counsel, and by the way, we take no foreign money either. there was a good deal of expectation earlier this year i believe that putin would delay announcing their presidential reelection scheme until after the parliamentary elections. by doing it in reverse order, they have provoked precisely the kinds of problems that we have seen. why do you think that they chose to exercise this slap in the face of announcing their scheme so close before an election
where people could, to some extent, actually register their disapproval? >> well, you're asking a very good question, and i have two short answers. first, clearly, they were becoming about the declining falling numbers, and united russia would go down in the elections as it actually did, and it allows justification of putin as leader of united russia to announce his return to the presidency, but the second thing is that i think they clearly miscalculated and to the best of my knowledge, there was never any serious discussion inside the russian government or if putin had any kind of kitchen cabinet which he apparently doesn't. any discussion of what they were doing of likely consequences. as such decisions, it apparently was mr. putin who made his own
calculations, a kind of led with a delicately to a conclusion that he's not going for the presidency, and apparently to putin and the way he'll stay as prime minister, and the putin accepted this in the name of harmony, and that was clearly a very serious miscalculation, and that is a reflection on putin's decision making style. >> margaret? >> short question. following up on what cliff asked, do you expect to see the putin government try to stage manage who gets to run in the march 4th election in a way that either produces a choice that would be unacceptable to a majority of russians or one that would at least not be? i mean, to what degree will they manipulate it and what direction? >> first of all, they will stage manage it, and there's no question about it, and for no
other reason in order for an individual candidate, independent candidate for presidency to be registered, they have to get 2 million signatures and by what -- by january 20th? something like that, but, look, there is no way anyone can collect in russia, a country that is oppressive of others, 2 million signatures of which can be easily verified unless the government allows you to do it, and then if the government is fairly broad minded in verifying these figures. sorry, verifying the signatures, so the decisions would be made by the government, but the situation is the house of government is going to handle it. they may decide to be very strict and prohibitive and allow only those parties that already in the parliament and most of them have strong government
connections to allow only this practice to present their candidates, or they may agree to let everybody, who he's not a hero of the radicals, and he's a little too old-fashioned for the mid generation, but he's noncorrupt and general liberal and quite thoughtful. you know, he may become a serious challenger. now, i'm sure there will be people in the government who would say we should not allow him because god forbid he gets more votes and he would go into the second round with putin, and then who knows what is going to happen. if the government would listen to this voices, i think that there would be a widespread public indignation, real outramming, and those may break lose. if they allow this i would not say that anybody would accept
these elections as perfect, but at least there would be a tiny more amount of legit legitimacy. >> okay, we're really running out of time here. i think there's three journalists in a row here. i'll let them all ask the question, and then dimitri, you can answer as you see fit, but i'll begin with you. >> channel 1 russia. my question is you already mentioned the economical factor, and the possibility of arab spring scenario for russia. what we've seen in those countries, even in the regions doing economically pretty well, the arab spring didn't happen. it happened in countries where there's economic poor. in russia, in european, how's the significant economic factor, and for the more -- the price of oil, what kind ever influence
will it have on the stability of the future of the country in order for the government to do business as usual? thank you. >> barry? >> going back a little bit, what would the consequences be if russia went through with the anti-missile deal with iran? >> you mean to sell the iranians -- >> dimitri spoke about the relationship, the united states and russia, but what does it do to the world situation -- >> if the russians sold their air defense missiles to iran? >> right. >> okay. i just wanted to clarify. >> i'm curious if the last elections 234 -- in russia would impact the elections in the united states? could it be a big deal with the primaries and could be a top foreign policy issue for republicans to take on, and
obama who declared -- [inaudible] >> let me start with white's question. in terms of these missiles, some in russia talking about supplying a more modern system of 400,000, and in terms of this system being deliver the to the iranians, and, of course, israel will have something to say about that. the israelis may have thought at first that it may become more difficult for them as the government to constrain israel. i will simply say that that action would clearly indicate that iran got a powerful protecter. it may trigger a crisis, and it also would raise questions about what is going to happen on the aftermath of the crisis because it's one thing to attack iran
and to try to destroy their nuclear missile problem which is not going to be easy, but let's say from now on they are not alone, and they can count on an active russian assistance in rebuilding whatever was destroyed. i think that it would change the security situation in the middle east profoundly and in a very dangerous direction. in terms of the impact of russian arab spring and the economic factors. well, it's quite clear that while you cannot establish percentages, one reason that the russians sound happy in addition to their dignity are the pocketbooks because it's of the world economic crisis and russian mismanagement, corruption, and excessive reliance on others, and as a result of that, leaving standards in -- living standards in russia stopped improving, and i have to
say in some areas and for some categories even began to go down, so that creates an explosive potential. it is unlikely to contribute dray maltically -- dramatically what's going to happen between now and presidential elections, but if you talk about what may happen next fall, that is what russian economists were warning me about. that if we look at the outlook, what to consider in addition to presidential elections in march, you have to look at possible economic problems in russia in the fall and how a weakened russian government would be able to handle them. finally, i think that you asked a very good question, and actually a lot of people in russia do not quite, in my view, understand the dynamics in washington. we, from the time of the soviet union, i made a policy, and it
was often oversold and over bought, and the same happened to the reset policy which obama administration in my view allowed to look as more involved and more lasting than it really was, and the more president obama talked about the policy as his success, the more he seemed to count on the president as his strategic partner. the more he talked about his face in russian liberal reform, and the more i think he was encouraging republicans to say wait a minute, what is going on in that country? i do think that there is a crisis in russia. it would become a foreign policy challenge for the obama administration, and inevitable topic of presidential debatings. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry. i have not been able to call on
everybody, but i'm sure you will all agree with me this has been a great discussion, and we have not got all questions answered, but i think dimitri helped us think about how to answer those questions, what the context should be, and what the crucial issues are going forward, so join me in thanking dimitri. [applause] ..
with cnn host and former news of the world editor piers morgan testified today before british committee investigating phone hacking and the culture of the british press. the former editor said he had no reason to believe there was phone hacking at the tabloid paper while he was in charge. piers morgan as one of many witnesses called to testify to
the love the senate inquiry. this is an hour and 40 minutes. >> first of all take the oath, please. >> i swear the evidence will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> can mr. morgan see us? can use es? >> i can see mr. j but not you. >> that's all right. fine. >> if you need to, you will. [laughter] you're full name and please, mr. morgan. >> piers morgan. >> thank you. you've provided to witness statements. the first is 15 pages signed another segment of truth. is that your first witness statement, mr. morgan?
>> yes. >> the second one is nine pages dated the 21st of november again with a statement of truth. do you stand by that statement mr. morgan? >> yes. >> now, if i can cover your professional background, your editor of the noon news of the world, is that right, between january, 1994 and august, 1995; is that correct? >> yes. estimate your the youngest set her ever at the age of 28; is that correct? >> i believe so, yes. >> and that news has not yet been surpassed? you then move to the daily mirror did in september, 1995 and the 14th of may, 2004; is that correct? >> yes. >> and you are now fighting to an employee of cnn and you do a
daily show piers morgan tonight which is very big in the usis understand. >> yes it is. >> me ask you to general questions. we know from your first statement that you are, as you described, that a facto editor of passan showbiz column which is i think still called bizarre under calvin mackenzie. we've noted it's not uncommon for the editors of leading tabloids to come to the show biz columns of the tabloid newspapers. why do you think that is so? >> a column white the bizarre came to be working template if you like. that's why so many became editors. >> it is often indexed the occupation in celebrity and the news value is have very much focused on that sort of matter.
>> i think it's very patronizing when people say that because i think in the end the have to compromise that and do news and show biz stuff and the art of being a good tabloid journalist is to do both. i always felt if you look at some of the people who came from the bizarre who went on to edit the new york daily news, these are proper news journalists. i'm not sure they can follow because you do recall on in your early years about the celebrities it is unfit to cover news i think it is rather pompous. >> can i ask the second question that the turnover between the tabloids and ask you about the experience in many of 2004 a very rapid turnover for the tabloid newspapers are not? >> between the newspapers they may not want to admit this but
quite a few people have gone through the ranks have originated from the tabloids. >> thank you. i would ask you now another general question about the to volumes of your diary. the first is called the insider. the second, don't you know who i am. the general question is how reliable are these historical documents? well, that is a moot point. they are my records of ten years of editing newspapers, which were compiled not as a contemporaneous diary but say in the introduction from the collection of notes, memos, e-mails, stuff like that and stuff like this on a weekly basis and i've constructed the four men as best my memory served it but it is in the
record of 100% historical import i would say no. estimate is it your best recollection? >> yes. >> in your first statement please if i can take you to 16, which is page 24194 in answer to a general question you say ethical determinations are central for the will to an editor to the major national newspapers and to a professional journalism. during my time is editor of the news of the world and the daily mirror ethical considerations are interwoven into my work and were imprisoned in aspect of the daily professional life. so that is and was your quota, have i got the right?
>> yes. >> than a 17th of the code of practice use the l.a.p.d. to say is displayed prominently throughout and informed every editorial decision made during my tenure as editor of news of the world and the daily mirror and then i paraphrase in the context of balancing privacy of individuals against the public interest. and is that right? >> yes. >> and eight your recollection is in compliance with the practice was the requirement of the contracts with employment of journalists working with the daily news released around 2000. you don't think, and again i paraphrase, it was the expressed requirement of the employment as editor but then you say in the second statement it was so obvious it went without saying you comply with the practice, is that correct? >> yes. >> paragraph 25 of the statement
you deal with libel and you make it clear in your view that the libel law we in the united kingdom has enormously onerous requirements is that so? >> that was my belief when i was editing newspaper. i have written this nearly eight years after left it is a newspapers said it relates to my time as editor. >> paragraph you give examples of how the ethical consideration informed decision making and in paragraph 29 you were providing the copy of the budget in 1996 and the upshot it was and para a phrase you didn't think it was to publish so instead you had to
get back. have i summarized what happened? >> yes. taking the view that the budget were before it was publicly announced is that you're thinking? >> we have the management which is very unusual but because of the indication of the allin king of the budget we felt this was correct and there were a number of considerations one of which we were not able because the ticking clock element of the story to completely verify its veracity so we were not sure that we were dealing with 100% accurate documents. second, we felt the material contained could potentially cause market chaos and was that irresponsible thing for a newspaper to be giving, did we need to do that? it's not a big enough story to actually just have the budget and create the big sites that went back through that.
looking for there were a number of things we could have done to the story. i am satisfied that we took the responsible course of action, although i would note within the space of the 24 hours i was captain skidded by the government overnight the priest me for what i had done and then by the next day they had come around to thinking this was a terrible allegations of my journalistic duties. so clearly there were different views about what i have done to a 64. in paragraph 31, do you have any more detail in your first diary you deal with the story in december 1997 involving the 17-year-olds secretary being involved in you explain how that was confirmed but then on and decided in the circumstances that rose to publish the story but without identifying the concern is that correct? >> yes.
>> thank you. 33v nado b campbell story, that of course is the story which ended up in the house of lords a couple of years later i think. is the right? they were divided as we all know. >> yes. >> paragraph 34 of your statement dealing with the complaints and the wide proceeding treatment the complete was upheld by the dcc and then mr rupert murdoch gave a public statement which you set out in 34 where he said it is clear the young man, that's you, went over and had no hesitation to make the public demonstration. now i've reminded mr. morgan forcefully this is the responsibility to which she is an editor subscribes to in the employment. the company will not tolerate the company's best practices of
the popular journalism. i'm going to return to that in a moment. they ask you a little bit in this first witness statement to deal with the issue of the investigators would now be 50 on page 24202 you have no recollection of any personal involvement in the use of the private investigators during your time in the news of the world but we were looking at the period that i think was less than two years. so paragraph 51 from time to time they would engage in a private investigative journalism during my time as editor the professionals were useful tools in securing the water it in evidence for or fact checking the articles and stories the journalists had uncovered about which they received. do you know what sort of
evidence private investigators would seek out for the newspaper mr. morgan? >> i don't because i've never been directly involved. this was dealt with through the news desk so in editor in that position i think probably like most editors you wouldn't get directly involved. that was enshrined in the contract of employment so i never had any concerns that they were breaking a law using the private investigators. >> i will come back to that issue if i may. the question please of the unethical news gathering. presumably you have heard of the term ecology. is that correct? >> i have become acquainted 28. speck on how many occasions did you take advantage of the
services? >> i was trying to remember. i know that i to tell that least one in my book in relation to the story about elton john. i cannot honestly say how many times but certainly we deploy him or the services several times. >> in the first book 1998, the 13th of january the gentry said a is there any way you got the same peter bac edition? >> yeah. i have the hardback. >> it is 185. you tell us it is a very strange guy who told me a few stories in the past and ran this morning with an extraordinary offer. i've got all of the bank statements he squealed in a high-pitched voice. he would have gotten them.
his nickname is benge and he goes around making rubbish in celebrities' houses and lay the papers by the stock despite the serious unethical way that he acquires it, and then i paraphrase he turned out the documents including the bank statements. did you have any problems with that, mr. morgan? >> it clearly is a strange thing to be doing. he used to live in the house that have hundreds if not thousands of. it's a very unusual way to lead your life. did i think that he was a legal? no. dividing that he was on the cusp of being unethical? yes. but it is interesting to me to see the testimony in the chief investigations editor of the guardian who decided to make
somebody else pay for this information who brings up the beatles and self which is something the guardian is very good at and since they've appointed themselves as the sufficient i would like to examine that practice because in a way it isn't disseminated. they take the discord of remains from the tabloids, fill their papers with them but don't have to pay anything. the daily mirror would have been a lot more profitable. >> we are not asking questions in this moment we are asking questions of you. you're what makes it clear that you use this exact language despite the unethical way that he acquired it not just on the cusp of this unethical behavior on the strong side of the line, would you agree? >> i don't know actually because if you discard it away you are discarding it so you'd have no more use for it and you just go off to rubbish where everyone
knows you walk down and help themselves. >> i'm not sure they can but you can get some advice about that. >> you can't get their rubbish tips? >> you can mr. morgan. the property of the discarded rubbish probably belongs to the local authority see. are you seriously suggesting for the probe said who's thrown away rubbish in this case mr. alton john has in the expectation he might end up in the hands of a journalist? >> it wasn't him actually. it was his manager. >> his manager, pardon me. >> the same principle applies, doesn't it? >> i think it's thrown rubbish into the street i just throw it out there i wonder how unethical it is that's going to be in the newspaper. that's rubbish.
>> okay speed the investigators have you heard of someone called steve whitmore? >> i have since this all blew up. i wasn't aware of him before. >> when were you first aware that 45 of the daily mirror's journalists were identified by the information commission positively to have been involved in the commission in his view of unlawful transactions? >> it was published in 2006? >> it was, yes. were you aware of it before then? >> i was working in america. i left the newspaper before, so that is when -- i think he will remember noting that when it was published in the paper and the time.
>> the information commissioner identified 681 transactions is the term he used which he considered amounted to the breaches of data protection law and 45 known journalists in the daily mirror. are you saying that you were not aware of any of that happening at a time after you were editor? >> i'm not aware of any of the specifics but i'm also not aware that any journalists were arrested or charged or prosecuted or convicted of anything. so he may have a view about the nature of those investigations and they may have had a different view. >> what you did you have of the journalists were doing at the time regardless of the information commission might have had? >> the journalists were obliged under the contract of employment to work within the law and the only selection is if you were to employ a public interest affect.
it's the only possible excuse he did have for going against the law. estimate the sort of information the journalists were seeking from mr. whitmore namely the numbers, vehicle registration marks and that sort of thing. were you aware of that? >> no. >> is it to be aware of what your journalists were doing at least in the general terms? >> i would say the average investor is probably aware of about 5% of what is journalists were up to in any given time. >> were you aware of the sort of money that was being spent even if one can find it to the 681 positively identified transactions according to the information commissioner as evidence the figure would be anything between 52,000 to
80,000 pounds or were you aware of that time? >> no. >> who would be responsible for authorizing that level of expenditure? would it be the managing editor clacks >> i think so. i think it is for the managing editor's office and probably desk editors themselves. it would all be done at that level. it doesn't come across my desk as far as i had any recollection so that's why i haven't in the memory of the specifics of it. but i do want to reiterate here that none of this has ever been proven. these are just things where people say we believe this. whether the and enter into a debate is had. >> okay.
>> we may come back to this the the issue of the phone hacking which i am obliged to ask you about, page 289 of your boss and which is >> was there with me one minute while i find it. the entry for the 26th of january some have suggested today that people might be listening to my mobile phone messages. apparently you don't change the standard security code every felon who comes with anyone can call your number and you don't
answer tapping the standard for digit code to hear all your messages. i will change mine just in case but it makes me wonder how many public figures and celebrities are aware of the trick. when were you first made aware of this little trick? >> according to this january, 2001. >> were you aware of it before? >> no. >> who made you aware? >> i have no idea. i'm sorry. it was ten years ago. i can't remember. >> can you assist at all with the context? when you look at the entry which deals with something else altogether, just refresh your memory and all i will ask you to
think hard. you don't necessarily have to identify the some one that suggested it to you but another journalist whether it was a friend. can you help us at all? >> if i can't remember who it is i can't narrow it down to a genre. i can't remember. >> do you recall an interview in 2007 with the press does that else for quite a good and i feel a lot of sympathy for a man who has been a convenient fall guy for an investigative practices as everyone knows was going on at almost every paper. >> yes. >> now, why did you say that? >> the rumor at the time it was exploding. i hadn't been there for three years but everyone you talk to said he was being made a
scapegoat. this was a widely prevalent thing. i wasn't aware it was in any specific form. i was hearing these rumors like everybody else. the reality is that it certainly seems to have been much more widespread that one newspaper, and we now know that the guardian also was phonak tirso you have the two newspapers but certainly the why it apparently than just collided goodman but i'm not going to get into the rumors because that isn't the point of this inquiry. >> were you rumor mongering when you had the interview with the press gazette in 2007 were were you thinking from your own experience? >> i was passing on rumors. >> is a practice on the third newspaper and to the mix was taking place within the daily mirror the 14,004? >> i do not believe so, no. >> you don't believe so or you
are sure? >> i don't believe so to the best of my recollection i do not believe so. >> and then there is june, 2009 what about this middle class boy who would have to be dealing with essentially people who break through people's bins for a living and then you say i and then you are cut off and she continues people who tap people's phones, people who take secret photographs -- and then you say i know, but -- and then you are interrupted again -- who do that nasty in the gutter stuff. how do you feel about that? and then you say to be honest let's put that into perspective as well. lots and lots of that went on and a lot of it was done and then she is really? and you say a lot of it was done by third parties rather than by
the staff themselves. that's not to defend it because obviously you were running the results of their work. i am quite happy to be part of the tabloid beast than to have to sit here and defend all of the things i used to get up to and make no defense about what we used to do. i simply say the people doing it would were very wise and to the high end of the low end of the supposed new saber markets. so you were referring there that your newspaper was doing it? >> doing what? >> phone hacking among other things. >> no. i played it back the other day to remind myself. i go to answer a question immediately and she cut me off because i know exactly where she's going and she's talking about the kind of what i guess would be described as the darkness peter investigations
with our it is and i was responding in general terms. i think you hear the tape deck in real time you can hear that. i didn't hear her say phone tapping and i certainly wasn't a looting to phone tapping. i was talking in a general way about the practices of undercover investigations and the nature of which by definition can often sound quite another fighting. >> of the third party is that you are referring to while the stuff themselves who were the of third parties in the general terms? >> people like the private investigators, anybody on the part of the photographers. >> what were the private investigators doing? >> i don't know specifics. i'm talking about the generalization of this investigative work. so people don't understand how the stories get into newspapers or how engaged the television news reports get on television.
the way that the stories are gathered, the way they are protested can also sound identifying it doesn't make it illegal. >> i just wonder what you are intending to encompass by third parties and private investigators, mr. morgan, what activities worthy of to on your behalf? >> i don't know the specifics. but i think that i've been given a range of things from what we talked about to the top of the photographer to sticking people out of their homes. it's just not the kind of work that seems edify being that a free news organization with dewitt and the process of gathering news. it doesn't matter if you are a television company or a tabloid. >> are you saying that you didn't hear them mention people who tap people's phones?
>> if you listen to the tape back you can see i didn't hear it. >> the transcript says people who tap people's phones and take secret photographs, and then you say i know, but -- and then to be fair she interrupt you again. >> i've already tried to answer the first point before she mentioned it. i didn't hear her say phone tapping. she rattles off a list of stuff and listen in real time fighting that you would see that. >> okay. and then another interview which is in gq magazine and should be under tavis seven team i hope, mr. morgan. >> yes. >> the fourth of february, 2011.
>> it is not. >> it is a reprint of an article which was published in april of 2007. that's right. we are looking at is later. the same sort of phenomenon that we saw with steve and it was reprinted. unfortunately the way this is printed off and it is difficult to get these things off the internet, but it's about 13 pages in. >> i've got the pages to read >> when you pull out a large note pad and she starts interviewing you and the question she put to you at the bottom of the page, what do you think of the news of the world reporter who was recently found guilty of tapping the world's phone did you ever allow that when you were there?
i was very in '94 and '95 before the moguls were used very much into that particular track wasn't known about. i can't get too excited. it is pretty well known that if you didn't change the code you got a new phone then reporters could bring your mobile, tap into the standard setting numbers and hear your messages. but nothing serious as planting a bug in someone's house which is what some people seem to think was going on. to read when you're saying it was pretty well known are you referring to what was pretty well known -- what period of time would you say is pretty well known, i will ask the question in that way. >> i know from my own book i became aware of it in early 2001, and i had vague memories after that of the gathering and i think members of public from what i hear is what a great
trade secret. but it was a long time ago. >> okay. then they also expressed a view about its seriousness. did that indicate to us it wasn't superior? >> there was a misconception build of that involved journalists breaking into people's houses and planting bugs in their phones and i was really talking about the difference in my view in seriousness between that and what is actually a very simple thing to do from a mobile phone and something that i'm told although i have no evidence myself was widely known to the public and the use to do it to each other. >> if it is an invasion of privacy you say yes but loads of newspaper journalists were doing it. clive goodman called the news of
the world reporter has been a scapegoat for the practices. so you are making it clear that what your beliefs was in april, 2006, is that correct? >> yes. it seems to be brought up. >> you were thinking not quite far, weren't you, mr. morgan, a very widespread practice, loads of newspaper journalists were doing at, and you were making statements there which were to suggest that you were basing yourself on personal knowledge even in what other people might have told you, wouldn't you agree? >> no, i wouldn't agree. >> but why did you say that he was made a scapegoat from the very widespread tactic? >> i would have thought that subsequent events would have shown he was made a scapegoat because it's a fact. estimate but then in april of 2007, we were looking at one
individual, mr. goodman, and one private investigator that not many people were saying you is a very widespread practice and that is individuals happen to know it was a very widespread practice. did you see the point? >> i see your point but it was extremely noisy and often not entirely accurate since this blue up with endless rumors but it's spreading a lot and subsequent events have shown that not to be the case. so i do think that he was made a scapegoat and having known him when i was at news of the world i had felt sorry for him. >> a couple of questions further on. would you like it if someone listened to your messages? deduce to do it to me. >> who is they? >> that was my concern and the
person who i can't remember said to me that they might be hacking the phones. what is that, they told me. i've been told people were doing it to me through the investigation which you may want to refer to leader but under no specifics i have got no proof or evidence of that. >> but then you say no i didn't like it and you subject to the reader that you knew far more about who was doing it to you than you are telling us now, mr. morgan. >> welcome i didn't like the thought of it. it was true i have actually no hard evidence it was true but i didn't like the idea and it certainly made sense of it because some of our stuff was leaking at the time. >> did the rumor that you are referring to embrace your newspaper is being amount to the perpetrators? >> not that i remember, no. >> come on, mr. morgan. your newspaper was near the top of the west, wasn't it? >> top of the list of what?
>> the perpetrators carrying out this sort of practice and you know that. spicule also know that not a single person has made any formal or legal complaint against the daily mirror for phone hacking. not one. so why would you say that? >> i will continue with what you told ms. campbell just to complete this line of questioning. with new technology comes the new temptation and issues and this has brought the practice out into the open and it won't happen anymore. celebrities get a lot more privacy now than they are used to. so you believed that this practice was coming to an end, is that so, in april 2007? >> i certainly felt clive goodman the practice would be dead in the water, yes. >> have you listened to the recordings of what you knew to be illegally obtained a voice mail messages?
>> i did not believe so, no pity estimate you either did or you didn't there is a question of belief. have you listened to recordings of what you knew to be the legally obtained voice-mail messages? >> i do not believe so. >> you know about the online peace which is sort had 22 for the 19th of october, 2006. could i invite you to look at that, please? under tabler one. we're looking at slightly different volumes. it's about ten pages stated the 19th of october, 2006.
it is quite different headline. as a matter of introducing you to this so we got our bearings and when you say at the start of this is that it was you who introduced the karni to have their mills. that's when you said, isn't it? >> yes. >> if you want me to read them out you explain that he introduced other mills to paul after the show and what happened next as it were. i'm going to cut straight to the quick. in the middle of this page stories sunni urged the marriage was in trouble. do you have that sentence? at one stage i was played a tape of a message left on the mobile
phone. can you remember the circumstances mr. morgan? >> i forget where i was it to do so would be to compromise a source and i can't do that. >> i'm not sure about that mr. morgan. you can discuss in general terms where it was, can't you? >> cat tolino i can't. >> as a tape of a voicemail message, wasn't it? >> i'm not able to discuss where i heard it or who and i think the inquiry already stated to me they don't identify sources. >> but they do expect you to identify what is obvious to anyone reading at is that you listen to 80 of the voice mail message, is that correct? >> i listen to a tape of the message, yes. >> a voicemail message, wasn't it? >> i believe it was coming yes.
>> did you deal in more detail with what you heard paul was pleading with her to come back. so you listen to all of that. did you know that that was on ethical? >> not unethical, nope. >> why not? >> on the cheap voice-mail message you didn't think that was unethical? >> it depended on the circumstances. >> can you tell us something about the circumstances that might lead us to think that this was not unethical? >> i can't, no because i'm not going to do anything to the source. >> but the source was participating in the activity as you work and isn't that true?
>> you are presuming it is unethical. >> let's give it this way mr. morgan. without identifying your source, the only person who would lawfully be able to listen to the message is the woman in question or somebody authorized on her behalf to listen to it. isn't that right? >> possibly. >> well? >> sorry, what do you expect me to say. >> another possibility if there is 1i think. >> well, i mean i can't go into the details of it without compromising the source and i'm not going to do that.
ibm perfectly happy to call bill leedy mccarthy to give evidence as to whether she authorized you to listen to her voice mail. if she didn't she may say she did in which case you are not compromising anybody. but if she didn't, then we can proceed on the premise to somebody else, can't read? >> what we know from the fact is in the divorce case the state as a fact that she had recorded the conversations and had given them to the media hist. >> maybe i will do that then. >> can you help us as to when approximately you describe here this took place mainly listening to the message? >> i believe the early part of
2000, 2001 but i can't remember exactly when. >> clearly in the era that you were the editor of the daily mirror. spec i believe so, yes. >> an employee of the daily mirror? >> i'm not going to go any details about the source. >> you were not going to identify the source of you tell us whether or not the individual party or an employee of the daily mirror. >> i'm not going to start in the trail that leads to the identification of the source. >> did you listen to the voice mail messages in relation to erickson? >> malae did not. >> do you recall the lunch hosted by victor on the 20th of september, 2002, when you advised her to change her pen
number and you started mimicking her swedish accent, do you remember the location? >> nope. i don't remember the specifics. i think i remember her coming to the lunch. >> breaking it down into its two parts. might you have advised her to change her pen number? >> i don't recollect that. >> mr. been makovsky pronounced his name correctly also had the one she indeed next two or close to? bennati did come to one of the lunches. he can to one of the launches but i don't know which one. >> did you tell him he should tell his customers to be more careful about changing their pen number? >> i don't recall that. >> might you have told them that? >> it is possible, yeah.
>> can i tell you as generally as i can the circumstances in which have suggested if you did listen to johnson's voicemail that a competitor of yours had hacked into her voice mail. i'm sorry i'm not going to go into the details of that, they were them boasting about this and then someone told someone close to you who let it be known to you that this is what happened, and then you decided that we knew, in other words of the mirror that packed into the voice mail as well and that is precisely what happened? >> absolute nonsense. >> it's simply told she was having an affair with ericsson.
she came back and confirmed it. >> page 330 of the insider right for the 18th of april, 2002. you may have to sit down for this one. are you with me? this would be with my new news supreme flown into my office looking even more pleased with himself than usual and i could tell from the grin on his face that this was a big one. you never set out who the source are, do you? >> not here, no.
>> maybe the reason for your dissidents, pardon me, mr. morgan, is you didn't want to set out precisely who it was that the source was because you knew that that would be a bit tricky, would you agree with that? >> i wouldn't agree with that, no. >> and that is right. you did phone the agent and then there were various exchanges. but can i ask you to deal with the 21st of april the last line of i attribute this all to the comments of the close friends closing for comments what was that a reference to? >> a conversation with melanie kantor and she doesn't want to be named on the record but she would be happy for me to say a
close friend she was. >> is in that a reference to whoever we see in the first place to confirm if it was correct? >> if they won't take the calls and if she says them on a attributed this to close friends. it's fairly obvious, isn't it? >> okay. you have seen i think the statement which is in our bumblebee and i will give you the tab in a moment. tabbed number nine, mr. morgan
if you look at the bottom, page 24227. islamic it's actually not numbered. >> if you look at the bottom right hand side of each page do you see then a long number? >> i don't, no tariffs bigot is going to be the third page. >> okay. the paragraph beginning in the middle of the page, another example is the lack of corporate governance was the unfettered activity that the show business. are you with me? the show biz journalists on the 22nd floor were proposing if that were where the show biz journalists were based.
>> i think so, yes. >> they were able to see close hand. have they carried out the pete using what has now become a well-known technique to act into the voice mail systems of celebrities and public relations executives the openness and frequency of the activity gave me the impression that it was considered a standard of the journalist tool for gathering information. in example on occasion to or more members of the show business team discussing what they've heard on the voicemail openly across their desks one of the reporters showed me the technique giving a demonstration of how to hack into voice mails. it seemed to be common on other newspapers as well, the journalists and the sun were also listening to voice mail messages but on occasion i heard the members having to ensure
that no journalist would give the same scope by hacking it in themselves. is that something you knew about, mr. morgan? >> no. >> you're quite hands-on, weren't you? you were coming through show business journalists and more on the 22nd floor, 12? >> i liked them and they were very good at their jobs. >> but didn't you take a keen interest in what they were doing? >> i took a keen interest in everything that they were doing. >> so this was going on prior to the standard of the journalistic tour and it's something that indeed was going on wouldn't you agree? >> i think it follows that your
evidence must be that it wasn't going on for me to your evidence is that it was going on. >> i have no reason or knowledge to believe it was going on. >> what did you yourself know from your own perception of what was going on? did you see this sort of thing going on at the moment? >> no. >> are you sure about that? >> 100%. it is also a convicted criminal to this benet you told us several times in the witness' statement but then you come close to arguing that the position rather than giving us evidence. can i just ask you a number of other planes on what he says. he says as well page to 40 that
this is the fourth page for bylines from the bottom occasionally when the big stories emerge, he, that is you, might ask about the source of our information the prime concern been the credibility of the source and whether the paper would take the action of the publication with the story plan not to be from. is that correct? >> sorry, can you repeat that? >> you are asking him about the source of the information occasionally, he said. >> i dealt with -- i have no recollection of conversation with him about the source of any story. >> as a generality, just talking about your practice in the specific case, would you ask
your journalists about the source of their information? >> not usually, no. >> on occasion, would you? >> so the next page where he says from my experience of working in the newspaper's news editors and editors asked reporters for the source of their story for the matter of cause the libel action having the apology the number-one concern is the right or not is that right? >> nope. >> are you seeking to distance yourself from the sources because the sources we are talking about are the fruits of phone hacking? >> nope. >> and then to pages further on, page 242, four lines from the
top of the page, when he says there is however an undeniable pressure to deliver. is that right or not? >> a few tabloid newspapers we work for conventionally he would try to come up with some stories coming yes. >> then he continues the exquisite newspapers especially the sunday newspapers and every journalist is under pressure to bring them in. would you agree with that statement or not? paths to the journalists were under pressure to bring their stories. that is their shaunna description. >> to continue for example mr. morgan would regularly stand immelt e-mails for journalists not bringing in enough exclusives and these e-mails would often be in a tone. is that correct or not? >> i would quibble but i would certainly occasionally put a
>> there is just one part i want to ask about about the particular circumstance. he says, the justice says on page five about 10 lines from the bottom, i also take into account the fact that at that time there is no formal code of conduct for the journalist at the daily mirror. is that correct or not? >> i do not believe there was in relation to the
commission that was on display in the newsroom. journalist were expected to it here to the code. >> there's no guidance by your superiors or the in-house lawyers. would you agree with that? >> i would not. there was regular guidance from the lawyers of particular. >> then he continues, there is evidence of the culture of information within the office. would you agree with that? >> [inaudible] >> you don't think there residue that's at the time? >> search been journalists did buy shares but don't think that was a culture at
all. >> i think you were one of them? you bought 67,000 pounds of shares in a company the day it was picked by "the daily mirror" on a january 18, 2000. it culminated upholding the complaint, no more than bad and also the four year investigation not taking the matter any further. is that right? fam i guess. >> originally i think your position was to only purchased the thousand pounds worth of shares. is that right? denied that was not my position i told the company immediately how many shares that i bought.
>> the bbc adjudication referred 20,000 pounds worth of shares? >> i believe so. >> wasn't that based on the information that you provided? >> not that i provided. the company did. >> which company? >> i think it was trended the mirror? >> it must of an information and that you provided for them to provide. can we not agree about that? they would not know unless you told them. >> the trinity mirror, as they still referred to riches and -- merchanting. >> based on how much you provided? >> yes. >> one way or another we are under the impression not
67,000 pounds. is that right to? >> tennis the mirror and thereafter did we know about that? >> no. just to clarify they knew exactly how many shares that i bought. >> you know, how it is the ron information was provided? >> i believe the company took certain pieces of information that had not been made public which led to other people involved in the constructing of the story based on the secrets of the events that they were reading about in their total sums of money and the amount of the shares and the company felt for better or worse of this was information not to go into public demand because it would expose of the people
involved which is pretty much what happened. >> the difference between the 20,000 pounds and the 67,000 pounds was based on some of the shares put into personal equity plan and the balance were put in your wife's name. is that right? been i think so. >> why isn't dead information that should not be provided in the first instance? >> "the daily mirror" did that i read the adjudication myself i tried to outline their reasoning. >> i ask you please about
one of their injury in your diary. the transcript injury in a page of 269. the 28 of july 2000 we were offered of transcripts today that attention was drawn that if you don't win the case was about piers morgan? i don't know. now another call expands on the thoughts saying a he is out 20,000 pounds. at least everyone will know
who did it. >> why did you say that transcript? >> seven a plan to have me assassinated the. >> some say it could relate to a circumstance in which it was obtained. is that not the possibility here? >> no. because i believe that aspect is that i was hoping this is not the actor record of the conversation taking place. >> can i ask you about paying police officers? is that happen well you were editor at the daily mirror? >> i have no reason to believe so. >> do say that it was not
brought to your attention? >> i have never been made aware of any evidence of that at all. >> can i ask you to clarify one entry into the diary we pre-notified you of this and forgive me if we didn't but it relates to evidence that is given twos the culture and the select committed -- committee 2003. do you recall that? fam i recall hearing. >> your position on that occasion standard since it tabloid press have improved in the previous few years is that correct? >> then there is the paragraph later rebecca
excelled herself to a net sheet talk to the policeman for information i talk to her about the last minute and she apologized that is why she should never be seen nor heard in public. i will not ask about that particular sentence would of your reference to mou droppings the tabloid back was a general reference or general exceptions too legally pay the policeman that went on in the tabloid press generically. would you agree with that? >> no. why did you say that? >> because it was getting attention of the press i thought it was a mistake. >> in what sense?
she said it was a mistake. >> was a mistake because she should not have said it or that it was untrue? to do you see the distinction? >> >> there is another incident that caught my attention when a journalist was put on the cover of buckingham palace for a number of weeks to do recall that he may be hearing from him at some stage is that something you organized? >> yes. it was. >> why?
>> on the faces seem to be a massive security breach which is what it turned out to me. >> won the u.s. instigated of course? >> >> did you published any stores as a result? been i guess. it led for about one week. >> did you feel that was in the public interest? >> absolutely. >> why mr. morgan? >> because we expose a huge series of loopholes in the community's system around the royal family that was so easy to expose we could have easily been a terrorist and if we were and not journalists than the royal family members may not be here today it is hard to imagine anything more in the
public interest in that. >> i am sorry to go back in time now we're going back considerably to the seventh of july 1994 page 40 this is the injury for the seventh of july 1984. what the talk about of the mannose switchboard operator become name of assessed and this is a story in which upon further investigation you did not publish? >> correct. >> can you explain why there was evidence the female switchboard operator was
psychiatric day disturb or ill a lot of people breakdown when we confront them and threatened to kill themselves. was that an accurate statement? >> i think it was more of a general sense of when people are confronted, they do tend to play the card. >> and then you say there is of a difference for ago i could not live with myself if we expose her on page 17 then she would kill herself. >> between a pedophile and somebody who runs the switchboard? i think that is fairly self evident. >> please explain it in this context. >> one is potentially rate
being young children and the other is managing the switchboard. >> at pdf vyyo -- pedophile at the time presumably not doing those things just be cut as they have them pedophiles in the past? >> i certainly think it is in the public interest. yes. then to say sometimes the job does feel like you're playing with people's lives. we find out who lives and dies is that an accurate description of slightly borrowed language? and from what that entails. >> i think it is. >> that could be ruthless highly destructive
instrument? is that true as well? >> yes. >> i have not had any sleepless nights yet but i can feel them coming. of course, it wasn't that much longer your own me on for another 13 months before you moved on the but you had immense powered didn't you? then with "the daily mirror"? >> this may do feel you has sufficient judgment at the age of 282 wait out-- difficult issues against the public interest, mr. morgan? >> i did my best. >> but did you have the necessary judgment to carry out that exercise looking back?
>> i would say i was unusually young for a job like at and i relied on those who were much more experienced you were more valuable but it is saved to say that i was pretty young. i was 28. >> a new word editor of news of the world you paid 250 pounds per week to be in the sunday mirror? >> the paper did. >> is that something you knew about? >> i was made aware of it. yes. >> it is the disgrace and totally unethical. would you agree? >> probably. yes. >> one example of altering or dr. rainn photographs midday princess diana photograph made them look as if they are kissing?
>> yes. that was a stupid thing to do. we did not actually, the public the pitcher was the exact same appearing in a rival paper it came as a result of digital photography and they would miss huge -- miss use the original images i think we all saw that was not a good idea. >> kimmie talk about your attitude -- attitude about privacy to go back four pages from the end of this interview the top right-hand
corner says page #2 of six the question is how you feel about snitches? to sell private information to the paper. do pay them? yes. they are disgusting little over men and to help you sell papers yes. there again i agree but that does not mean the editors don't think the people selling them are horrible now you are a celebrity has your view of those privacy laws change? no because those of the last people that should be protected by the privacy law they use-- they use the media the most to sell the privacy for money. were you referring to all
celebrities there? >> in what context? >> the answer to the question that was put to you >> i have struggled to find this because this is not an order i am sending as you read that. can you identify the paragraph? >> four pages from the end then you'll see page #2 out of six may be too out of seven. it is quite a difficult website. >> i have it now. >> my view of celebrities and privacy is that it really depends, i am sure this will come as a central
core rate to the inquiry, how much privacy are you entitled to do if you are a famous person or public figure if you yourself use your privacy for commercial gain. those that sold their weddings 41 billion pounds but then expect to have privacy it just seems to me at nonsensical position to adopt i have more sympathy for those celebrities that do not do that kind of thing. >> i think you are going further here but it's maybe you are being wound up by interlocutors adjusting all celebrities are not deserving of any sympathy at all because they sell their privacy for many? >> i think they are the last people who should be protected buy privacy laws or those who are the most
deserving all of the celebrity because i have the benefit of experience on both sides of the coin, the reality is in then going to those ordinary people of the public i consider myself very fortunate and others do not expect and that they use the media to promote themselves in that brand brand, but they do not like the top. you just cannot have it both ways. >> by your attitude to use the bbc, the party new-line which the firm and the it is
california adjudication of the pc see and all made to have a mention and the. >> yes. that could be the act your question. >> we have attached paragraph 34 of your first statement page 82 of the insider, maybe we should ticket upper on page number 81. four lines from the bottom and this is he was a year
precisely how you intend to smash the opposition into oblivion. but is that more or less correct in regards to your state of mind, mr. moore 10? >> but then you attribute i am sorry about the press complaining thingamajig he said to my astonishment. is that what mr. murdoch said? >> that was my memory. i do not have a recording of is. >> that thingamajig part to
is that jive with what you recall him having said? >> in my memory the fact i could not remember in that moment the exact wording i would not read too much into it. >> that you will say that this must have continued with you that was one of astonishment? >> dividend of background for this, the front-page which i a created and i take full responsibility only came about because it has effectively suggested it will not be a good idea. >> you may not remember the precise words but one does remember emotions or feelings when something is
said. that must have been at your state of mind when he did answer did you agree? >> he was taken aback by this year coverage of the issue the first time he made the statement against nature and i was getting kicked all over the place and he new-line was very on. he knew that i made said dumb decision that night team jane the front page at the last moment and i think he wanted to express a sense of understanding and he did. >> then your diary continues he definitely use the word sorry. writes? >> ee so. yes. >> definitely with you. >> as i say, this is 1995 so i would have written this 10 years later sorry suspect
that it was cleared by eight this failure that he does not get tough about it. that is the message. >> it was my eight assumption in me nine the his recollection i gaskin when we get there. that is the impression he left you with? >> yes. that is how i saw it. >> also that if it did is it really from the news of the world, i would suggest to the mirror as well that people did not care about the talks? >> no. absolutely they did.
may i cover. [inaudible] mr. morgan we have now where do of this the difficulty of the questions let me know but they are innocuous or at least not require you to more than agreed or this -- does agree. how many face to face me teens did you have with tony blair? to the number you gave was. >> it was just he and i.